464 school age children were shot this year in Chicago, the city with the strictest gun laws in the country, few, if any, by so called assault weapons. Don't you think your emphasis is a little misplaced?

* "About 99.8% of firearms and more than 99.6% of handguns will not be used to commit violent crimes in any given year."

* Reason for elimination: This statistic neglects key information such as the number of guns in the U.S. Thus, it can create a misleading impression, given that, in 2008, roughly 436,000 violent crimes were committed by offenders visibly armed with a gun.

2) This assertion is missing key information and can be deceptive because it accounts for murders committed with guns but fails to account for lives saved with guns. Hence, it neglects the primary issue, which is the overall rate of violent deaths. This is significant because, as the chart below shows, many states with higher gun ownership rates also have the lowest homicide rates:

* "Right-to-carry" states allow individuals to carry firearms for protection against crime. In these states, the violent crime rate is 24% lower than the rest of the U.S., the murder rate is 28% lower, and the robbery rate is 50% lower.

* Reason for elimination: This data does not account for other factors that impact crime rates, such as cultural differences, arrest rates, illegitimacy rates, poverty, etc.

Note that many gun control studies attempt to control for such factors, but opposing sides inevitably point to other factors that are uncontrolled, and due to data limitations, it is practically impossible to control for all relevant factors. Conversely, some researchers fault studies that do not show significant results until the effects of controls are considered.

In accordance with our mission to provide verifiable facts, Just Facts uses time-series data and lets this data speak for itself instead of subjecting it to statistical analyses. For example, we provide homicide rates in the state of Florida in the years leading up to and after passage of the Florida "right-to-carry" law. Such data does not prove cause and effect, but it does allow us to observe trends and limits the impact of numerous variables because the data is drawn from a large population set with limited demographic changes from year to year. To provide additional context, Just Facts sometimes provides comparative data (such as homicide rates for the nation as a whole over the same time period), but we provide this data in unadulterated form; we do not control for it in our calculations.

* "In homes with guns, the homicide of a household member is almost 3 times more likely to occur than in homes without guns."

* Reasons for elimination: This statistic is based on a three-county study comparing households in which a homicide occurred to demographically similar households in which a homicide did not occur. After controlling for several variables, the study found that gun ownership was associated with a 2.7 times increase in the odds of homicide. This study does not meet Just Facts' Standards of Credibility because:

1) The study blurs cause and effect. As explained in a comprehensive analysis of firearm research conducted by the National Research Council, gun control studies such as this (known as "case-control" studies) "fail to address the primary inferential problems that arise because ownership is not a random decision. ... Homicide victims may possess firearms precisely because they are likely to be victimized."

2) The study's results are highly sensitive to uncertainties in the underlying data. For example, minor variations in firearm ownership rates (which are determined by interview and are thus dependent upon interviewees' honesty) can negate the results.

3) The results are arrived at by subjecting the raw data to statistical analyses instead of letting the data speak for itself. (For reference, the raw data of this study shows that households in which a homicide occurred had a firearm ownership rate of 45% as compared to 36% for non-homicide households. Also, households in which a homicide occurred were twice as likely have a household member who was previously arrested (53% vs. 23%), five times more likely to have a household member who used illicit drugs (31% vs. 6%), and five times more likely to have a household member who was previously hit or hurt during a fight in the home (32% vs. 6%). )

If you are a person who is moral enough not to commit massacres, then you do not need a law making it harder for you to commit massacres.The school’s principal on Friday was killed when she lunged to take the killer’s gun from him. He shot her. She and 25 others, 18 of whom were kids, would still be alive today if she had shot him instead of trying to take his gun. Why didn’t she shoot him instead?The school was a gun-free zone. Why didn’t the shooter obey the school’s no-gun policy? Why didn’t the shooter think, “Oh, we can’t bring guns to this school? Well, crap, there go my shooting-spree plans”?You know what does not stop bullets from hitting kids? The backs of teachers. You know what does stop a bullets from hitting kids? A gun in the hands of a good person.The shooter, Adam Lanza, had a mental disability. Current law dictates that he’s not allowed to own any gun, period. So what we saw yesterday was the effect of a 100-percent ban on guns for the shooter. Yet he got guns anyway, through illegal means. The gun ban did not stop him.This is the reality: Guns will always exist, as will evil. No gun ban will ever stop those who do not obey bans, nor those who are evil.

Sorry, wouldn't take the website, buy here's the text.An increase in reportings by the media of gun-related violence does not mean that there has been an actual increase in incidents. In fact, violent crime in the U.S. (murder, rape, robbery and assault) actually went down four percent in 2011 compared with the previous year. It’s been going down for the past six years, and last year was the lowest it had been since 2006. It’s dropped twelve percent since then. Naturally, since the Left will never concede intellectually on the gun control debate, the one thing they can do is just report more incidents to give the impression that more guns equals more crime.The other side of the coin is that gun ownership is up. Forbes pointed out that call-ins to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) have steadily increased over the past decade: ”Over the last 10 years (from 2002 to 2011) there has been a 54.1 percent rise in the number of NICS checks and the increase hasn’t all taken place since 2008. In 2005 there were 8,952,945 NICS checks. In 2006 the number topped 10 million. In 2007 NICS checks pushed passed 11 million. In 2008 NICS checks passed 12 million, and then hit the 14 million mark in 2009. They increased slightly (4 percent) through 2011.”We’ve all seen these familiar statistics that have shown consistently that as gun sales rise, crime rates drop. These are no surprise to us since we understand that an armed society is a polite society. Liberals like to claim that gun sales are only going up because a black man is president, and overzealous white people think he’s going to take away their guns and ammo. Maybe that’s partly true, but gun sales as you recall “shot up” significantly in the aftermath of the Aurora theater murders. So, it’s not all Obama’s fault, although some have called the President “the greatest gun salesman of all time.”A couple days ago, it was reported that in Virginia, this very “counterintuitive” phenomenon is occurring now: ”The total number of firearms purchased in Virginia increased 73 percent from 2006 to 2011. When state population increases are factored in, gun purchases per 100,000 Virginians rose 63 percent. But the total number of gun-related violent crimes fell 24 percent over that period, and when adjusted for population, gun-related offenses dropped more than 27 percent, from 79 crimes per 100,000 in 2006 to 57 crimes in 2011.” In spite of the Left’s distortion of statistics related to gun violence (which also include accidents and suicides which inflate the numbers) and their lust to control our access to self-defense tools, we may be winning the debate after all. The left are doing these things and advocating gun control measures in spite of public opinion. They’re forcing it on people they claim to represent.Gallup released a poll last year that showed a remarkable change of opinion over the last several decades when it came to guns: ”A record-low 26% of Americans favor a legal ban on the possession of handguns in the United States other than by police and other authorized people. When Gallup first asked Americans this question in 1959, 60% favored banning handguns. But since 1975, the majority of Americans have opposed such a measure, with opposition around 70% in recent years.” This is great news because it means we’re winning the battle that counts, the battle of ideas. The more people are educated about the Second Amendment and the importance of guns, the less crime we’ll witness. It’s such a “no-brainer,” you’d think it’d come naturally to liberals.

Sorry Sprite, you have it wrong on more guns, higher murder rate. Look it up before stating facts. Some cities, like Chicago, still have the strictest gun laws in the country and also have the highest murder and gun crimes. Wherever concealed carry has been introduced violent crime has gone down.

You'll notice, Tazz, that there is a country on your list where every man is required to have a gun. I recently spoke to a citizen of Switzerland and he told me that they are not only required to have one but are required to know how to use it. A large part of the problem is that it's easy to get a gun, but so many people are against training to use one. When I was younger there were rifle clubs in high schools to do just that. That's no longer polittically correct. Unfortunately, the thugs use the spray and pray technique in their gang wars, and the children pay.

Nope, not sorry I asked at all. I just wanted to see what they'd say. I'm not trying to change anyone's mind. I doubt it could be done here, anyway. Just want to see what opinions and biases shows up.Now I know more than I did.

First point; As mediator, Xuani, you have allowed this thread to veer way off the original into left field and over the fence. Not that I haven't enjoyed the back and forth, but it isn't anywhere near the start.Second point; There certainly was worker exploitation in the past, and probably still is in some instances, and I believe unions did help to alleviate that. But forced unionism serves neither the worker or management.Third point; When I was still operating my non-union company, I had to sometimes remind a worker that the job they held was not created for them to make money, it was created for me to make money. If they were willing to do the work for the amount of money I was willing to pay, that was a silent contract between us. Some people may look upon that as worker exploitation, but without that agreement neither the worker or I would benefit.

I think you made my point Ruth by noting all the subsidies the government hands out. As romney said, should we be borrowing Chinese money to subsidize all these programs that can exist on their own in a capitalist society. The Constitution doesn't give government the authority to do this. We're broke folks and something needs to feel the ax.

I have to disagree , Dan, on a few things. FDR was able to communicate, that's what allowed him to be reelected so many times. But what has that to do with running the country? History has shown us that he extended the depression far longer than it should have. And so has Obama. We have had many wealthy prez's. Geo Washington was the richest and he did a pretty good job. I don't think we can go with a good talker but poor executive.